[CraigBuchek]

Why don't critics of global warming ever present any evidence? That's how scientists do criticism. Any criticism of scientific findings without evidence is useless. Of course, the critics know this, and know that criticism without evidence cannot be refuted.

If you think that there's some sort of conspiracy going on, which is more likely -- energy companies making billions of dollars, or scientists making millions of dollars -- to be spending their money more effectively to change people's minds in order preserve their future profits?

Let's say 9 out of 10 doctors told you that you've got an 80% chance of dying if you don't change your diet. Would you think that those 9 doctors are conspiring against you? Or would you change your diet? That's pretty much the situation we're in here. (Except that the 1 doctor who disagrees also does a lot of work for the snack food industry.)

[mseebach]

> which is more likely -- energy companies making billions of dollars, or scientists making millions of dollars

If you want to do motive analysis, you need to look at the full picture. First off, you forgot one player -- governments "making" trillions of dollars, and in need of a project to justify themselves.

And second, energy companies jumped on the AGW wagon a long time ago. They need to be in the right place, ready to dish out expensive solutions to hungry governments. See http://sppiblog.org/news/independent-newspaper-readers-comme...

[Gupie]

How about the doctors funded by tobacco companies who did "studies" and told people that smoking didn't cause cancer, did these doctors/companies commit a crime against humanity? I think it is reasonable to say they did.